| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
27 Aug 2005 01:40:25 PM |
| Object: |
Bush Backs Theocracy in Iraq |
Bush Backs Theocracy in Iraq
Here comes THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/195830.htm
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Backs Theocracy in Iraq |
28 Aug 2005 02:28:47 AM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote
Bush Backs Theocracy in Iraq
He's ALWAYS backed theocracy Iran, and a theocracy
spreading Saudi Arabia. Why should this be any
in surprise in Iraq?
Whatever loyalty the Bush family has, it's to Islamic despots.
Think about it. Bush bad mouths the democrats and holds
hands with the Saudi royal family. If that wasn't clue enough
for you, you're a retard.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Backs Theocracy in Iraq |
29 Aug 2005 09:12:06 PM |
|
|
In article <CPWdnYttT6vM-IzeRVn-1w@comcast.com>, JTEM said...
Bush Backs Theocracy in Iraq
He's ALWAYS backed theocracy Iran, and a theocracy
spreading Saudi Arabia. Why should this be any
in surprise in Iraq?
Well, this time he really had his heart set on plutocracy, poor
little guy...
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Backs Theocracy in Iraq |
29 Aug 2005 09:54:38 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:12:06 -0400, Brian E. Clark <reply@newsgroup.only.please>
wrote:
In article <CPWdnYttT6vM-IzeRVn-1w@comcast.com>, JTEM said...
Bush Backs Theocracy in Iraq
He's ALWAYS backed theocracy Iran, and a theocracy
spreading Saudi Arabia. Why should this be any
in surprise in Iraq?
Well, this time he really had his heart set on plutocracy, poor
little guy...
He's trying to get a monkey and a cat into a sack. When those qaludes wear off
(i.e. health care guaranteed to every citizen, the citizens own the oil, women
can run for office), boy is the fur going to fly. :-)
Ben
(post limited to alt.atheism)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Backs Theocracy in Iraq |
29 Aug 2005 02:35:23 PM |
|
|
I tend to agree with you on this one, Jim. I think the Iraqis are setting
themselves up for trouble creating an Islamic Republic. I have no problems
if they want to take ques from Islam, and even set law based on Islamic
standards, but I do not think it is a good thing to entwine Islam within the
constitution itself. Whether or not a person elects to follow Islam should
have no bearing on that person's relationship with the government. Having
said that, I see no problem with the legal system imposing judgements on
convicted criminals based on what is found in Islamic law. That is, if Islam
says to chop off the right hand for stealing, then that is what they should
do. Personally, I don't think that chopping hands off is particularly
humane, but I don't plan on traveling to Iraq, much less stealing something
while I am there so I am not at risk to lose my hand.
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:fsc1h11sc01vfkbh6vabhc7d0r5qjcvh2f@4ax.com...
Bush Backs Theocracy in Iraq
Here comes THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/195830.htm
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Backs Theocracy in Iraq |
31 Aug 2005 06:12:10 AM |
|
|
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote:
:|I tend to agree with you on this one, Jim.
There is nothing to agree with. I didn't write the article.
The Radical Religious Right/theocrats have been learning and learning well
how to use all aspects of the internet, including the UseNet newsgroups to
further their goals
I am returning the favor
My posts take two forms:
(1) Pro strict separation of church and state and consists of various
things from a variety of sources, including our own website
(2) Keeping people informed about the opposition by posting things the
theocratic radical religious right is doing, posting publishing etc
That article was written by another person, not by me.
One can call it theocrats in action for that is what it is
BTW, there are theocrats, i e radical religious right groups and
individuals, thus using that term is not name calling. it is identifying.
The theocrats, the radical religious right do want to set up a theocratic
society. They do not deny it
That is a far cry from the usual labeling or name calling done when people
use terms such as liberals, conservatives, atheists, fundies, and so on and
so forth
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Backs Theocracy in Iraq |
31 Aug 2005 01:06:34 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:044bh19flulr7v5lr0k1auid8j7latdgp7@4ax.com...
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote:
:|I tend to agree with you on this one, Jim.
There is nothing to agree with. I didn't write the article.
But you posted it, the assumption I make is that you probably agree with it
or you would not have bothered to post it.
The Radical Religious Right/theocrats have been learning and learning
well
how to use all aspects of the internet, including the UseNet newsgroups to
further their goals
I am returning the favor
My posts take two forms:
(1) Pro strict separation of church and state and consists of various
things from a variety of sources, including our own website
(2) Keeping people informed about the opposition by posting things the
theocratic radical religious right is doing, posting publishing etc
That article was written by another person, not by me.
One can call it theocrats in action for that is what it is
BTW, there are theocrats, i e radical religious right groups and
individuals, thus using that term is not name calling. it is identifying.
The theocrats, the radical religious right do want to set up a theocratic
society. They do not deny it
That is a far cry from the usual labeling or name calling done when people
use terms such as liberals, conservatives, atheists, fundies, and so on
and
so forth
I accept the tone of the labels as identifiers and not necessarily name
calling.
As much as I like my religion, and I think that others should be given the
freedom ot like their religion, I see no need for government to sidestep the
truth that many people do have religion, if it can do so without forcing
anybody to actually have religion.
We agree on the notion of separation of church and state, we disagree on
what constitutes a violation of the notion. We are one nation under God, and
I do not see this as a violation, you obviously do. I think it is fine that
a child make reference to his religion if he is asked to give the Salutation
Address as the school's Valedictorian, but the school should not hire a
preacher to come in and make the same reference. In one case, the student is
speaking freely and exercising his own religion, in the other case the
school is bringing in religion.
I agree on the principle, I disagree on when the principle has been
violated.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Backs Theocracy in Iraq |
05 Sep 2005 02:38:50 PM |
|
|
"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote:
:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|> "J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|I tend to agree with you on this one, Jim.
:|>
:|> There is nothing to agree with. I didn't write the article.
:|
:|But you posted it, the assumption I make is that you probably agree with it
:|or you would not have bothered to post it.
Are you always goog to make an ***** of yourself
Do you know what assume means?
Fact of the matter is I have been posting things that gives both sides of
the issues recently
Here let this soak through your beer soaked brain
Are you unable to separate news articles. letters to the ed and the like
from the poster when the poster has a different ID than the article
writer?
The Radical Religious Right/theocrats have been learning and learning well
how to use all aspects of the internet, including the UseNet newsgroups to
further their goals
I am returning the favor
My posts take two forms:
(1) Pro strict separation of church and state and consists of various
things from a variety of sources, including our own website
(2) Keeping people informed about the opposition by posting things the
theocratic radical religious right is doing, posting publishing etc
That article was written by another person, not by me. It was found on
what appears to be a very conservative web site
One can call it theocrats in action for that is what it is
BTW, there are theocrats, i e radical religious right groups and
individuals, thus using that term is not name calling. it is identifying.
The theocrats, the radical religious right do want to set up a theocratic
society. They do not deny it
That is a far cry from the usual labeling or name calling done when people
use terms such as liberals, conservatives, atheists, fundies, and so on and
so forth
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
